Skip to main content

B-127882, JUL. 31, 1956

B-127882 Jul 31, 1956
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

TO RESOLUTE PAPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 27. YOU STATE THAT BECAUSE OF THE DELAY IN FURNISHING YOU WITH THE NECESSARY GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING COVERING SEVERAL PARTIAL SHIPMENTS MADE UNDER BOTH CONTRACTS YOU WERE REQUIRED TO REMOVE THE SUPPLIES FROM YOUR FACILITY AND PLACE THEM INTO TEMPORARY STORAGE PENDING RECEIPT OF THE SUBJECT DOCUMENTS. YOU CONCLUDED THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS LIABLE FOR THOSE EXPENSES WITHOUT CITING ANY LEGAL OR CONTRACTUAL AUTHORITY FOR ASSERTING THE CLAIM. WE DID HAVE ALL OF THE MERCHANDISE READY TO BE SHIPPED WITHIN THIS THIRTY DAY PERIOD AND OUR CLAIM FOR DAMAGES COVER THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY US ONLY AFTER THIS 30 DAYS PERIOD HAD EXPIRED.'.

View Decision

B-127882, JUL. 31, 1956

TO RESOLUTE PAPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 27, 1956, AND TO SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR $1,041.55, ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR CERTAIN TRANSFER AND STORAGE EXPENSES ITEMIZED IN YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1954, WHICH YOU INCURRED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT NOS. DA-30-280-QM-34286 AND DA 30-280-QM-34287.

YOU STATE THAT BECAUSE OF THE DELAY IN FURNISHING YOU WITH THE NECESSARY GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING COVERING SEVERAL PARTIAL SHIPMENTS MADE UNDER BOTH CONTRACTS YOU WERE REQUIRED TO REMOVE THE SUPPLIES FROM YOUR FACILITY AND PLACE THEM INTO TEMPORARY STORAGE PENDING RECEIPT OF THE SUBJECT DOCUMENTS. ORIGINALLY, IN YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1954, YOU CONCLUDED THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS LIABLE FOR THOSE EXPENSES WITHOUT CITING ANY LEGAL OR CONTRACTUAL AUTHORITY FOR ASSERTING THE CLAIM. YOU NOW CONTEND IN LETTER OF APRIL 27, 1956, THAT--- "WE DID NOT RECEIVE THE BILLS OF LADING WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THE MIRR-S, BUT WE DID HAVE ALL OF THE MERCHANDISE READY TO BE SHIPPED WITHIN THIS THIRTY DAY PERIOD AND OUR CLAIM FOR DAMAGES COVER THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY US ONLY AFTER THIS 30 DAYS PERIOD HAD EXPIRED.' PRESUMABLY YOU PREDICATE YOUR CLAIM UPON THE SHIPPING PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT.

WITH REGARD TO SHIPMENT, CONTINUATION SHEET NO. 4 OF EACH CONTRACT READS IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:

"THE CONTRACTOR WILL EFFECT SHIPMENT FROM HIS PLANT AT THE EARLIEST PRACTICABLE DATE AFTER RECEIPT OF SHIPPING INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. IN NO EVENT WILL SHIPMENT BE MADE LATER THAN 30 DAYS * * * FROM RECEIPT OF SHIPPING INSTRUCTIONS UNLESS A LATER DATE IS SPECIFIED. * * *"

THAT PROVISION RELATES SOLELY TO YOUR OBLIGATION TO EFFECT SHIPMENT OF THE PARTIAL ORDERS RECEIVED WITHIN THE PERIODS SPECIFIED. SEE YOUR LETTERS OF JULY 12 AND 13, 1954, TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. NOWHERE IN THAT OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT IS THERE FOUND ANY STIPULATION WHEREBY THE GOVERNMENT AGREED TO SUPPLY THE NECESSARY SHIPPING INSTRUCTION (OR GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING) WITHIN A PRESCRIBED TIME. ON THE CONTRARY, THE QUOTED PROVISION PERMITTED THE GOVERNMENT TO DELAY THE FURNISHING OF SUCH INSTRUCTIONS IF NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE, AND SINCE THE CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT THE MERCHANDISE WOULD BE SHIPPED ON GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING, THAT PROVISION WOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO THE FURNISHING OF SUCH DOCUMENTS.

ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THERE EXISTS NO LEGAL OR EQUITABLE BASIS TO REIMBURSE YOU FOR THE EXPENSES CLAIMED, AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD FAILS TO DISCLOSE ANY EVIDENCE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE ORDER, TO SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENT THAT--- "WE DID NOT RECEIVE THE BILLS OF LADING WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THE MIRR-S.' YOUR CLAIM LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1954, ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF THE BILLS OF LADING ON JULY 27, 1954. THE PARTIAL ORDERS PLACED AGAINST THE CONTRACTS, WHICH YOU LIST ON PAGE 2 OF THAT LETTER, AND WERE MADE ON FORM DD-250 (MATERIAL INSPECTION AND RECEIVING REPORT), ALL BEAR DATES RANGING FROM JULY 6 TO JULY 15, 1954, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NO.-85A, DATED JUNE 16, 1954, COVERING ONLY TWO CARTONS FOR SHIPMENT TO LOUISVILLE MEDICAL DEPOT. THE PRESENT FILE BEFORE OUR OFFICE INDICATES THAT, EXCEPT FOR ORDER NO.-85A, THE BILLS OF LADING INVOLVED WERE RECEIVED BY YOU IN THE SAME MONTH THE BALANCE OF THE SUBJECT ORDERS WERE ISSUED, AND THEREFORE YOUR ALLEGATION THAT YOU WERE DELAYED BEYOND A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS APPEARS TO BE CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF RECORD.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING THE ACTION TAKEN IN SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 25, 1956, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM, IS SUSTAINED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs